NEED FOR CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CONTEXT1) comments of a Supreme Court Justice on the Chief Minister of a State
2) conviction of four scribes by a State High Court for Contempt of Court, in connection with a report of theirs which criticized the former Chief Justice of India.
Judicial activism and PIL (Public Interest Litigation) by and large helped the people's cause, particularly those causes which individuals or Corporates do not take up on their own owing to expensive lengthy litigation.
According to the Indian Constitution, all the three organs of the State 1) Legislature 2) Executive 3)Judiciary enjoy equal status. There is an unanimous agreement that one wing will not encroach into the jurisdiction of the other wing. This has, substantially, been respected during the last sixty years of independence.
In India judiciary acts with near perfect freedom. There are no shackles except serious shortage of judges and staff and some paucity of court premises. There are no major financial constraints. The judiciary has also functioned with great discretion, efficiency, honor and self-respect. However, owing to shortage of judges, legal ambiguities and tedious procedures, hundreds of thousands of cases piled up resulting in delays. Though a cliche due to excess use, the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied" continues to be highly relevant and valid.
Some instances of corruption among judges have also come out. One retired Supreme Court Chief Justice has also expressed his unhappiness about the corruption in Indian courts.
Though there may not be much corruption at higher level of judiciary, their occasional
obiter dicta
now and then resulted in some recentment.
In this context, the need for an
Autonomous Central Judicial Disciplinary Authority (CJDA) becomes essential. There are also supporting circumstanes such as: 1. The Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of Supreme Court Judges are heavily burdened with their regular work. 2. They may have delicacies while dealing with complaints against their own present colleagues or their former colleagues at High Courts.
WHAT SORT OF CJDA WE MAY NEED? IF SO WHAT MODALITIES?
1. Should be a creation of a Special Act of Parliament.
2. Must be a Constitutional body, by inserting suitable Articles in the Constitution.
3. Must have powers to caution and punish the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, except dismissal.
4. Must have powers to recommend dismissal of the judges. Actual dismissal should take place through the existing procedure of impeachment.
MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
1. Retired Presidents of India can be automatically admitted as members the moment they demit their office.
2. Retired Chief Justices and Justices of Supreme Court of India can be automatically admitted as members, the moment they retire.
3. -do- Retired Chief Justices of State High Courts.
4. The Seniormost former President of India can function as the Chair Person of the Authority.
5. The Seniormost retired Chief Justice of Supreme Court can function as the Secretary and Convenor.
6. Whenever the Secretary-Convenor is unable to or does not co-operate in convening the meeting of the Authority, the Chair-person may be empowered to convene.
7. The Authority should have good buildings matching its status, sufficient staff with appropriate seniority, vehicles, computers and other equipment. These are important because, the Authority must be able to investigate the complaints against judges independently.
8. It must have judicial powers over the Supreme Court, with regard to the service matters of the Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
(To continue)
